tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post7670807312534469503..comments2024-03-29T04:57:26.162-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: Cult Movie Review: King Kong (1976)John Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-34647751620110897702018-10-02T23:49:50.614-04:002018-10-02T23:49:50.614-04:00Thank you for a fair review of one of my favorite ...Thank you for a fair review of one of my favorite movies. You make a lot of good points I never thought of. I've always defended this movie when people bash it. I understand the importance of the original '33 version with the stop motion effects and B & W matte paintings. Because of the time it was made though Kong is just a monster who we are afraid of. In this version and due in part to Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange and Rick Baker's performance by the end of the movie we find ourselves rooting for Kong. I have the studio Canal version of the blu ray you mention and enjoy watching it when I get a chance. There is also a fan group on social media if you'd like to join. Robert Johnstonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-3255227788278247302016-09-08T02:07:59.917-04:002016-09-08T02:07:59.917-04:00I LOVE THE 1976 VERSION. THAT IS FROM MY GENERATI...I LOVE THE 1976 VERSION. THAT IS FROM MY GENERATION, PER SE. I WAS 16 WHEN IT PREMIERED. ANOTHER REASON: I actually was there, at the Twin Towers, in summer of 1976 (believe it was June or July); my friend Bill and I walked all of Manhattan from west side to East side (to NBC Tour, and saw IMUS and saw cousin brucie -whom we met, then walked down to the Towers, went to the top of the south tower (years later in the early 1980s, would go to the WINDOWS ON THE WORLD restaurant in the north tower), then when we came back down, we saw the body of KONG on the ground between the two towers, covered by a tarp (I believe I took a photo); rest of the day, we walked back up north of Manhattan, to place FASCINATION game arcade, then back to the west side, to return to Long Island, where we lived, and his father was a sanitation worker for NYC. THAT WAS A GREAT DAY! At least I saw Kong's body per se, and was happy when the movie came out, knowing "I was there"! I love the 1933 original BUT I DO LOVE THE 1976 VERSION ALSO. I am glad Paramount won over Universal at the time, as Universal did not want to modernize the movie, did not want to bring it up-to-date; as I felt Paramount was correct, to bring it into modern day, into the 1970s. PLUS big PLUS: THE TWIN TOWERS, were featured, and played well into the story of Kong. The 2005 version is good, and most prefer that over the 1976 version, but handful of us, have nostalgia for the '76 version, and for good reasons. I just bought the Blu-ray Japanese version of the 1976's king kong. Have not opened yet. I love the John Barry music too. I have the laserdisc, have the cd, and have the dvd, and now have the bluray. Thanks for letting me post this. (*I have had a hard week; 3 people I know died in 1 week, including actor Hugh O'Brian who was a good friend of mine, was to his house). Anyway, thank you. Bye for now.WELLENDOWEDpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02217318856714098662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-69286332106359623732014-08-11T10:50:25.498-04:002014-08-11T10:50:25.498-04:00I enjoyed your article: you mention Rick Baker, bu... I enjoyed your article: you mention Rick Baker, but there were actually two 'guys in the ape suits', the other being Will Shephard. Will has written a book about his experiences on set. It's called Inside King Kong and has lots of behind-the-scenes photos too. The paperback is UK only, but the book version is available worldwide.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14986209686455305810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-866479890165149062014-03-01T21:30:10.916-05:002014-03-01T21:30:10.916-05:00I'm a little surprised the author didn't d...I'm a little surprised the author didn't delve more into the Twin Towers as a symbol for David and Nelson, the Rockefellers whose Standard Oil connections helped make the Trade Center possible.<br /><br />But, what a lovely piece to be able to point people to. Having not grown up with either Kong, I discovered this one first, and perhaps that is why I do not tear it down to build up the original. I thought, despite the technical challenges of the day, the storytelling was so astounding that it became an instant favorite. So nice not to be alone in that sentiment!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-69318941191736369732013-02-11T11:53:08.971-05:002013-02-11T11:53:08.971-05:00I was a 12year old boy in 76. Thank you for puttin...I was a 12year old boy in 76. Thank you for putting into words what I have always felt. I was always embarrassed to admit loving this movie. You have made me understand my love for it more clearly. I have a boy myself now and he has enjoyed all of the Kongs. For whatever reason and with great respect for the original and Jacksons remake, which combined elements of the earlier Kong movies, I still watch Dino D's over and over again. I even listen to John Barry's amazing score while I do my daily commute. I see its many flaws but cannot ignore my fascination with it. A lot of people don't get it. Glad to see that a few of you do. Thanks. Ps Anyone enjoy the guilty pleasures of TOHO productions King Kong escapes & King Kong vs Godzilla? Now those are guilty pleasures!Hooverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13849894866336585065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-26976478495060601162012-08-03T21:08:02.626-04:002012-08-03T21:08:02.626-04:00Thank you so much for your eloquent defense of thi...Thank you so much for your eloquent defense of this extremely underrated film and especially for correcting the continually-made mistake that the film was a box office and critical flop. Certainly, KING KONG 1976 is not a classic on the level of the 1933 original, but, as your piece so wonderfully points out, it's a fascinating film in its own right. I have had the great privilege to interview many of the key people that made KING KONG 76, and they were all sincere in their desire to make a good movie that would both stand on its own and serve as a worthy tribute to the original. In my opinion, they succeeded. Thanks for giving the film its due.Ray Mortonhttp://www.raymorton.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-50086483877505485902012-07-31T21:59:18.646-04:002012-07-31T21:59:18.646-04:00Excellent look at this underrated 70s film, John. ...Excellent look at this underrated 70s film, John. I daresay it's my second favorite of all the King Kong films. The original being first and Peter Jackson's CGI-fest would be last -- yes, that one is the finest production, on a technical basis, of the lot, but its length and filmmaker's vanity with it just irks me no end. Like the decade that bore it, John Guillermin's film had a lot of heart (rather than Jackson's, and the new century's, seeming earnestness with the latter version). I'd also say it had a better cast and story, too. IIRC, it was an uncredited and obscured Gene Hackman (his eyes were the only facial feature shown) who was one of the military pilots who shoots and kills Kong during the finale. You've written a great reminder that this film needs more appreciation, my friend. BTW, have you seen how scarce and pricey the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/King-Kong-Blu-ray-Jeff-Bridges/dp/B002D0L0UY/ref=tmm_blu_title_0" rel="nofollow">the Blu-ray of this</a> is going for at Amazon? Thank for this, John.le0pard13https://www.blogger.com/profile/09421175808461787862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-57138752108622766132012-07-31T20:20:06.013-04:002012-07-31T20:20:06.013-04:00John you have written a very engaging review of th...John you have written a very engaging review of this extremely underrated film. As I read your thoughts on the King Kong(1976) film, I am vividly remembering seeing this movie as a boy in ‘76 with my family. For me this is still the most heartfelt of the three Kong films. Being made and set in the present day of 1976 makes it a permanent part of my boyhood memories, not at all like the (1933) film or (2005) film both set in the 1933. The screen caps of the two vertical parallel pillars on the island and the two vertical Twin Towers skyscrapers are brilliant comparisons of the island and concrete jungles.<br /><br />SGBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-55884834609279472002012-07-31T19:22:02.151-04:002012-07-31T19:22:02.151-04:00Trent,
Very intriguing and thoughtful comment, my...Trent,<br /><br />Very intriguing and thoughtful comment, my friend. <br /><br />There have been, over the decades, many race-based interpretations of the King Kong movie(s), and your comments here are absolutely in line with the conclusions those analyses make. <br /><br />I see why you feel as you do. I can't deny that King Kong -- especially the 1933 version -- hits the very notes you have highlighted. <br /><br />One of the reasons I so much love the genre film, however, is that it has, historically-speaking, assumed the voice of the disenfranchised or maligned, and made the audience get behind that voice. <br /><br />No always in conventional or easily digestible ways. <br /><br />We saw it in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, a film about slavery and revolt. <br /><br />We saw it once more in Willard, again about slaves rebelling against their master.<br /><br />And I think we see it again in King Kong, particularly the 1977 version. Kong is a sympathetic character in this film, and a hero as well. <br /> <br />The vexing problem can come in, as I perceive it, in the overly stereotypical presentations of the disenfranchised in some of these efforts, and the fact that these visions are, largely, created by whites, who may not be particularly sensitive to some aspects of the more harmful racist myths. <br /><br />Plus, in all cases, the disenfranchised is also coded visually and thematically as somehow "other than human" -- even bestial -- when the intent -- I suspect -- is to code them merely as "other than the establishment." But that line is easy to blur.<br /><br />I believe one possible intent in the original Kong and the remake may be to highlight the (stereotypical) black experience in America, but the message comes out garbled in some instances, if that makes sense. <br /><br />The intent may good, in other words, but unspoken/unchallenged, yet still accepted societal stereotypes are still transmitted, hence some conflicted symbolism in the films. <br /><br />Excellent thoughts, my friend. It's an issue worth exploring more.<br /><br />Best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-21686184016313221082012-07-31T18:25:31.675-04:002012-07-31T18:25:31.675-04:00Hi David,
Agreed! My favorite character in the 1...Hi David,<br /><br />Agreed! My favorite character in the 1933 film is Denham -- warts and wall. I can't stand the character in the 2005 remake. Jack Black is a lot of things, but he's not a serious actor, that's for sure. Terrible casting...<br /><br />best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-88249105835352449182012-07-31T18:24:36.559-04:002012-07-31T18:24:36.559-04:00Hi Filip,
I agree with you that the 1976 King Kon...Hi Filip,<br /><br />I agree with you that the 1976 King Kong is deeply underrated, and the adjectives you use to describe the 2005 remake are appropriate too: bloated and overblown. That movie needs about an hour cut out (and all of it with Jack Black as Denham).<br /><br />Best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-21838787352473413802012-07-31T18:23:25.389-04:002012-07-31T18:23:25.389-04:00Neal,
You make some excellent points here about t...Neal,<br /><br />You make some excellent points here about the 1976 Kong attempting to make a statement, a relevant one at that. You're absolutely right about Jessica Lange being menaced by the gas pump...a surreal and LOADED image, to be certain. And I'm glad you brought up Prescott's advocacy for Kong, and total support of the ape (even over the soldiers in the helicopter). That would be defiantly anti-PC today, and would never happen.<br /><br />I really enjoyed Peter Jackson's remake when I first saw it, but as I noted above, I appreciate it less and less each year, because I feel it really doesn't mean anything, or convey anything of importance. Some of the settings are amazing, but even the effects have not worn well.<br /><br />Excellent thoughts...<br /><br />best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-82141743490749567372012-07-31T18:20:54.850-04:002012-07-31T18:20:54.850-04:00Hi Pierre,
I agree with you that the 1976 Kong de...Hi Pierre,<br /><br />I agree with you that the 1976 Kong deserves some credit for updating the story to make it relevant to the times, and also for introducing the character/plot element of a sympathetic Kong. This is a big change from the 1933 original. <br /><br />At the time of its release, I was bowled over by the visuals in the 2005 King Kong, but over time, my appreciation for it has diminished somewhat. I feel it boasts the same problem as most of Jackson's work: a lack of discipline regarding editing, run-time, etc. His movies tend to be overlong and over-edited in my opinion. I agree with you as well that the film (the 2005 version) made a mistake going back to the 1930s. Period sci-fi/fantasy films rarely work...<br /><br />Great comment, my friend!<br /><br />best.<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-11305619549229736942012-07-31T18:18:11.358-04:002012-07-31T18:18:11.358-04:00Hi J.J.
Well, the 1976 King Kong at least has the...Hi J.J.<br /><br />Well, the 1976 King Kong at least has the advantage of possessing a sense of humor about itself. That may help you enjoy it more than the 2005 version...<br /><br />best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-11254531840843578332012-07-31T14:01:42.596-04:002012-07-31T14:01:42.596-04:00I have mixed feelings about the 'King Kong'...I have mixed feelings about the 'King Kong' films. I find both the 1933 version and the 1976 version so filled with racist symbolism that as a college educated African American male, they are today almost unwatchable. Kong, forcibly taken from his overseas home in chains by white males, taken by ship, paraded in front of the American populace for entertainment, eventually rebelling against his situation, breaks his chains, and is ultimately put down violently by law and order. The natives obsessive worship of Wray/Lange even offering 6 of the chief's wives for one white female. Even Kong was smitten by Wray/Lange, both representing standard racist myth of the black male’s exaggerated sexual potency, and the notion of his insatiable desire for white women. There are, of course, other symobolism represented in both films, but the racial over and under tones for me is in your face and impossible for me to ignore.<br /><br />That being said, I obviously did not have those interpretations as a 7 yr old kid in 1976 sitting in the theater watching the movie. Thought the beginning was magical and I was entranced all the way through. Today the NYC scenes on the Towers have not aged well at all, but clearly superior to the 1933 film, (which I find literally unwatchable for all sorts of reasons).Trenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00419980258148279356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-55748034480618259742012-07-31T10:44:54.373-04:002012-07-31T10:44:54.373-04:00Give me this over PJ's over bloated Jack Black...Give me this over PJ's over bloated Jack Black fest anyday of the week.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03097420555737415471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-3434204509836977342012-07-31T10:26:50.700-04:002012-07-31T10:26:50.700-04:00Very underrated film... much better than Peter Jac...Very underrated film... much better than Peter Jackson's bloated and overblown version.Filip Önellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07040437866322355522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-28294832681251950192012-07-31T10:24:09.281-04:002012-07-31T10:24:09.281-04:00Really great review! Those who were not around to ...Really great review! Those who were not around to see the movie when it came out will probably not understand the impact that it had at the time. Relevance was of great importance to movie makers back then and this movie definitely tried to take an old classic and make it relevant to the times. The surreal shot of Jessica Lang standing in front of that giant gas pump could have come from the movie version of Tommy.<br /><br />Another thing that struck me was when Kong is swatting down the jet places and Jeff Bridges is actually cheering Kong on, even as human beings are plunging to their deaths. His loyalty to the animals over humans is clear. I don't think any hero in a movie today would be allowed to do such an un-PC thing, but it was completely true to his character. In other words, there was no clear hero; just people who had their own agendas.<br /><br />By comparison, Peter Jackson's remake is more in line with today's sensibility: Let's cash in on a recognizable franchise and load it down with lots of special effects and (sometimes pointless) action. Who cares if the only point in doing it is to make lots of money?Neal Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053148427058126745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-51135777945086380502012-07-31T09:39:16.577-04:002012-07-31T09:39:16.577-04:00As I've mentioned in a previous comment, I rea...As I've mentioned in a previous comment, I really like the 1976 version of King Kong. While everyone I know hated it, I was able to see the attempt to create a sympathetic character in Kong. The attempts to update the story to the 1970's oil crisis was very smart and gave the whole production the thematic cohesiveness lacking in the original.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. The original is still the champ of the Kong films and the original Kong is certainly a sympathetic character but the 1933 version spoke to other themes than the 1976 version did. Yet both films play up man's potential to tamper, exploit and destroy things that have value beyond what Western civilization can get out of it. The mistake of Peter Jackson's remake was to bring it back to the 1930's. The strength of the 1976 version was to remake the story as a relevant fable for the mid 1970's.<br /><br />As always John, you've done a beautiful job at getting at the heart of this overlooked film.Pierre Fontainehttp://pierrefontaine.webs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-10208888613441530032012-07-31T05:47:55.711-04:002012-07-31T05:47:55.711-04:00Well, if it's better than the 2005 version, I&...Well, if it's better than the 2005 version, I'll give it a try, but I think I have to forget that one, first. Sometimes I wonder why I'm being such a jerk. maybe because they deserve it. ha! ha! Talk about hating a movie...J.J.http://random-bits-of-pie.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com